"I am inclined to define ID as the search for evidence about
supernatural agency in the physical world."

To that I'd say David Campbell and myself can never hold a rational
discussion about ID until we reconcile our radically different
definitions of it. I absolutely do not believe ID is a search for
supernatural agency in the physical world. [see footnote 1]

I believe ID could hypothetically identify human design (implying human
intelligence), alien design (implying alien intelligence), machine
design (implying machine intelligence), animal design (implying animal
intelligence), and lastly transcendent design (implying transcendent
intelligence), and that the same technique is used for all of these.
Unless someone can show me the difference between one of these types of
design and transcendent design, and also show me a reliable means of
telling the difference, I do not believe we can separate them from each
other. If we cannot separate them then assigning a label of
supernatural to one of them and then dismissing the possibility of
detecting any of them does not seem logical to me. It seems quite
arbitrary. I believe there is a field of non-theistic teleology in
addition to fields of theistic teleology. But it is not being
considered by theists and anti-theists.

Footnotes
========
1. The great sin of ID is it *allows* people to believe that
supernatural agency has affected the physical world. And this is
offensive to anti-theists.

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> I have often said that the logical conclusion that follows deep thoughts concerning all that surrounds us plus the totality of the human experience is that there must be a Creator. If one accepts that the God of Scripture is indeed the Creator and Scripture is the truth, then what sort of scientific worldview does this imply? Can people justly call me a creationist for holding such a belief?
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:57 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Olasky on Collins
>
> â€œOlasky seems baffled by Collins being an evangelical and opposing ID. That seems contradictory to him.â€